ADMIN: Review Process Guidelines

Mark D. Pesce (
Wed, 29 Jun 1994 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)

VRML List Members:

We have extended the language submission process through Friday, 1 July 1994.
Immediately following this, we will will begin the language review process,
the eventual outcome of which will be the designation of a base language
which will serve as the basis for VRML 0.1.

VRML 0.1? Don't you mean VRML 1.0? Well, upon careful consideration, and
the willingness to accept that few things work quite as they should the
first time around (especially programming languages), we've decided that the
specification should have a version number which reflects its immaturity.

The review process will consist of several parts:

1) Languages at VRML Forum Web site

Brian Behlendorf is re-working the VRML Web site, and is creating seperate
pages for each of the specifications under discussion. We ask that each
individual who wishes to participate in the review process familiarlize
themselves with each of the proposals.

2) VRML 0.1 Requirements

Also at the VRML Site (posted to the list, as well, on Thursday) will be a
document, developed by the list moderators, which outlines the minimal
requirements for VRML 0.1 - the basic problems it must solve. This is not
very different from the three-point plan which we've stated several times,
but is being extended _slightly_ to cover some ground we'd forgotten, and
have been made aware of by the list members.

3) Programming Examples

We will post a "problem", that is, a proposal of a very simple "world" which
must be coded into VRML with a given language specification. We will ask
that, as part of the review process for any given language, a reviewer solve
the problem in at least one VRML specification language. If you'd like, you
can solve the problem in all of them. (It might be very interesting to
contrast and compare how one individual took different approaches based upon
the language being used.) The problem will be very simple; nothing more
difficult than a room with a few objects.

4) Essays

Rather than busy the list with lots of very short reply traffic, we are
asking list members to compose somewhat lengthy, and complete assessments of
any language which they assess. It is more important to us to have you
explain, at length, what works and what doesn't. If this involves
commenting upon another's assessment, that's fine, just as long as it
remains more original content than criticism of another's. Brian Behlendorf
is bring up WIT (Web Interactive Talk) at the VRML Forum Web site, and when
that comes up (within 2 weeks) it'll be possible to critique proposals
without barraging the list members with messages.

We will consider a positive posting for a particular proposal as a "vote"
for that proposal. You may "vote" for more than one proposal, so don't let
that restrict your thoughts or actions.

If any of you have concrete experience with any of these proposals, please
contact Brian or myself directly - we would like you to provide some
background for us, which will be posted to the Web page which outlines the
specifics of that proposal.


This document infrastructure will be in place by Tuesday, 5 July 1994, but
you can begin the review process now, using the documents in their current

We are eagerly looking forward to this stage of the language specification
process; lay your pearls of wisdom before us, so that we can all benefit
from your experience.

Thanks! It's been a pleasure!

Mark Pesce (
Brian Behlendorf (

|| * That's AL * WorldWideWeb